English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Motion relating to Lords Amendments 36, 90 and 155
270Ayes
170Noes
Carried · majority 100 · Government won209 did not vote
649 Members · Aye 270 · No 170 · DNV 209 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted on 27 April 2026 to back the government's position on Lords Amendments 36, 90 and 155 to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, insisting on the Commons' earlier disagreement with those Lords changes and proposing further amendments in their place. The motion passed by 270 votes to 170. This was one of several divisions held on the same day as the bill moved through the final stages of parliamentary ping-pong, the process by which the two Houses exchange amendments until they reach agreement. The vote concerned disputed changes the House of Lords had made to this legislation, which restructures how devolution works in England by creating a new tier of strategic authorities at three levels and standardising the powers conferred at each. Because the Hansard extracts provided do not set out the specific content of Amendments 36, 90 and 155 in detail, the precise policy question those amendments resolved cannot be stated with certainty. What is clear is that the government rejected the Lords' version and put forward its own replacement text. The broader context of debate on the day included disputes over brownfield site prioritisation, the mandatory leader-and-cabinet governance model for local councils, and the recognition of rural and coastal communities in the bill's competence framework. The vote divided entirely along party lines. All 268 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government. All 96 Conservatives, 57 Liberal Democrats and 5 Greens who voted opposed it. Five independents and four Democratic Unionist Party MPs also voted against. No Conservative or Liberal Democrat MP voted with the government, and no Labour MP voted against it.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position — reject the Lords amendments and accept the government's alternative provisions, backing Labour's approach to English devolution including powers for ministers to direct creation of strategic authorities and mandatory cabinet-style local governance.
Voting No meant
Side with the Lords against the government — oppose the bill's centralising tendencies, including the lack of a statutory brownfield-first requirement for development and the mandatory imposition of leader-and-cabinet governance on local councils.
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The party-line column is inferred from how cohesively each party voted, not a published whip: a clear one-way majority of a party’s voters reads as a line, a close division reads as “Split”.
Party
Party line
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Voted Aye
243
0
118
Conservative and Unionist Party
Voted No
0
96
20
Liberal Democrats
Voted No
0
57
14
Labour and Co-operative Party
Voted Aye
25
0
17
Independent
—
1
5
7
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
—
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Voted No
0
4
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Voted No
0
5
0
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
1
0
1
Your Party
—
0
1
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
1
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · party line inferred from voting cohesion, not a published whip; “Split” = a close within-party division
Government minister defending concessions on rural/coastal affairs and parish councils while resisting statutory protections for brownfield and music venues, arguing devolution works best through local flexibility not central mandates.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (6,531 words) →
Opposition challenges the Bill as centralizing despite its devolution title; calls for brownfield prioritization, local consent for authority mergers, and stronger parish council protections to genuinely empower communities.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,665 words) →
Welcomes rural and coastal amendments but criticizes forced governance model changes and brownfield rejection as false devolution; demands real local choice and environmental protection.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (901 words) →
Backs agent of change principle for music venues to prevent legal harassment; supports statutory protection to avoid £50k+ defence costs for cultural venues threatened by residential development.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (765 words) →
Argues for local consent on mayoral powers and highlights Cornwall's national minority status under European conventions; calls for consultative, not directive, approach to devolution.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,279 words) →
Criticizes two-year delay on Secretary of State powers over combined authorities; demands permanent protections for Cornwall's national minority status and meaningful devolution.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (905 words) →
Advocates statutory agent of change protection for grassroots music venues; documents 350 closures and argues planning guidance alone is insufficient without enforcement and stronger NPPF language.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,059 words) →
Demands mandatory rather than consultative parish council inclusion in neighbourhood governance; argues 20% of country lacks democratic structures and Government amendment leaves gap unresolved.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,363 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0